"Justice Anne Walsh Bradley made the decision to sensationalize an incident that occurred at the Supreme Court . . . ," Prosser said in a statement. "I was confident the truth would come out and it did. I am gratified that the prosecutor found these scurrilous charges were without merit.

"I have always maintained that once the facts of this incident were examined I would be cleared. I look forward to the details becoming public record."

In her own statement, Bradley said the case "is and remains an issue of workplace safety."

"My focus from the outset has not been one of criminal prosecution, but rather addressing workplace safety. I contacted law enforcement the very night the incident happened but did not request criminal prosecution. Rather I sought law enforcement's assistance to try to have the entire court address informally this workplace safety issue that has progressed over the years," Bradley said in the statement. "To that end, chief of (Capitol Police Charles) Tubbs promptly met with the entire court, but the efforts to address workplace safety concerns were rebuffed. Law enforcement then referred the matter for a formal investigation and I cooperated fully with the investigation."

If the issue really was "workplace safety," as Bradley says, why did she "sensationalize" it — to use Prosser's word — by taking it public in a way that was, I think, quite unfair to Prosser?

Click on the "Wisconsin Supreme Court" tag to see how this issue played out over the summer, with protests sliming Justice Prosser. I will write more about this later, but I want to get the post up to let you discuss things.

143 comments:

Are you sure Bradley sensationalized it? I thought from your previous blogs that it was "others" who brought this to the public attention and as Bradley stated she wanted an internal discussion of how to improve the workplace environment.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) as Bradley stated she wanted an internal discussion of how to improve the workplace environment

AND “Anger Management” classes, IIRC…pre-supposing Prosser’s guilt, but showing the “magnanimity” of Bradley, but castigating her attacker, but seeking to “improve him.” The self-righteous approach, if you ask me.

Who calls the police to discuss "workplace safety"? Seriously? And who calls the police when they want something addressed "informally"? Does she consider the police to be her private employees, rather than public servants sworn first and foremost to uphold the law?

And if she DIDN'T think a crime had been committed, as she's now trying to suggest, then why did she not simply say that once the police made it clear that they would do their job, rather than act as her informal workplace safety counselors?

The similarity between this case and the case at Widener Law School is striking. In both cases, it pitted a confirmed victim industry woman against a man she was determined to punish for violating the unwritten laws of feminism and racial preference.

In both cases, the woman seems to be in trouble with her campaign against the penis.

...the occurrence of acts of violence which are not "recognized" as characteristic of employment and represent random antisocial acts which may occur anywhere would not subject the employer to a citation for a violation of the OSH Act....At this time, we feel that the situation you described is best handled through your company's employee relations activities.

The justices apparently should go to the WISC's HR department for counseling.

They should probably eschew the group hug, as that sort of thing is a likely trigger for violence in this group.

And what's this about the "court" refusing to address the safety issue through Tubbs. That's not Tubbs' job. If there really were an issue of workplace safety, Justice Shirley should be addressing it. But like Bradley she is an unreliable partisan who can not be believed.

I don't dispute that workplace safety is at issue. I have long argued that the robes judges wear are woefully inadequate to protect against the vicious hits in which judges engage. A helmet, a mouthpiece, and crotch guards should all be mandatory.

We know from our experience with hockey, however, that even if these additional safety devices were mandated, current judges would be grandfathered out of any mandatory provisions. Only new judges could be required to wear them.

Perhaps as a law professor, a later Althouse post can go past the "well, nothing CRIMINAL happened!!" angle to opine whether or not the incident and media leaks by a Justice or two brought DISCREDIT on the Court and the legal profession.

Is this a matter not of main concern of hero cops and hero prosecutors...but of main concern to the Bar and the attendent Judicial Conduct Committee? Should the Bar have disciplinary hearings, even up to asking some parties to consider resigning their office?

Molly said...I hope none of you Prosser-ites out there think that this matter is closed. This game isn't over.

What do you expect the next move in the game to be, Molly? I mean beyond drum chants, editorializing and internet palaver? Do you expect the Judicial Commission to remove Prosser from office? A civil lawsuit by Bradley? An OSHA complaint? A recall election?

The Dem/Lefty game in Wisconsin IS over...it's very annoying for the rest of us for y'all to keep thinking - insisting - that it it is not. It is. Deal. Given a choice, the people keep not choosing your ideas, candidates, failed institutions, grievances.

A sentient being would conclude something from this, other than that your messaging/thug tactics/demonizing has not gone far enough. It has. The evidence that it has is that you keep losing.

Judicial Commission proceedings are confidential unless and until the Commission decides to file a proceeding with the Supreme Court. The procedures to get to that point are lengthly and complicated.

Among the actions the Commission may take are the following:

Sometimes, instead of taking the more formal "cause to proceed" route, the Commission will simply invite the judge to a meeting to discuss specified concerns arising out of an investigation. These informal appearances will usually conclude with a private letter to the judge expressing the Commission's concern or warning. Of course, this type of informal resolution often follows a cause to proceed formal appearance as well.

Unless the members of the Commission are hacks and partisans (always a possibility but there is yet no evidence this is true), does anyone really expect this will be referred to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a formal proceeding?

kudos to Ms Barrett who handled this hot potato skillfully and expeditiously--viz our commenter Molly, Ms B's finding wont end the sad incident, but Molly appears to be a bitter clinger. rather like dingleberries.

I looked up the members of Wisconsin Judicial Commission. Turns out I know two of them. These two are about as far from being hacks or partisan as you can get. If the others are half as good, there will be a sensible review of the matter.

If they were completely in charge of the WI state senate, house and governorship (and lets throw in WI supreme court)....what would that look like?? Ummm, how about rewind to a few years ago with Jim Doyle et al. running up debt, begging our neighbor Minnesota, illegally taking money from patient compensation funds and chasing business out of the state. Is that what winning looks like?? No. It is what losers look like.

Come up with some actual, you know, good ideas. Then you will start to "win the game".

"I hope none of you Prosser-ites out there think that this matter is closed."

I have never met/phoned/e-mailed/friended or exchanged greetings with Prosser. However, as best I can make out, he was the target of a hastily contrived frame-up that now appears to have been done in by its own hysterics.

I'm relieved for Prosser. Given slightly different circumstances, such as the absence of an impartial witness, this easily could have turned out differently.

But the biggest winner is us out-of-staters (and, by extension, the microwave popcorn industry). Nothing good is coming out of all this, but at least I get to munch my popcorn and get all this cheap entertainment out of your otherwise awesome state.

Hey, we all stop maturing somewhere around 7th grade. Some of us just make a more spectacular show of it.

"In New Law School thinking, the law does not embody a rational system of justice—or even strivings toward such a system—but is essentially a political construct that has historically operated to keep the rich and powerful in their places of wealth and power and other groups—women, racial minorities, the disabled, and the poor—in their socially subordinate places. If this characterization sounds Marxist, that is because Critical Legal Studies—and its intellectual progeny, Critical Race Theory and Feminist Legal Theory—grew out of the New Left radicalism of the 1960s, which viewed American governmental and social structures as systems of oppression. It has also been influenced by postmodernist literary theory, with its assumptions that there is no objective truth or reality. In New Law School thinking, reason, free will, and personal responsibility are illusions, for all legal battles are actually struggles of race, class, and gender, in which power, not justice, is the ultimate goal.

In New Law School scholarly writing, rigorous analysis of court opinions and the drawing of fine distinctions underlying legal arguments have been supplanted by “story telling": personal narratives typically involving the law professors’ own experiences as members of an oppressed group with the race-gender-class matrix that is the source of their oppression.

Since a shift in the power structure, not justice, is the goal, any tactic that coerces the recalcitrant into conforming to the new power regime is permissible in New Law School thinking.

Yo Althouse: This whole contretemps should give you some rich material to use in your class--do you plan to use it at all? Now I teach public health emergency management amd have the Japanse tsumanmi as a case study as compared to how NOLA dealt with Katrina--do you use real life events in your classes?

The greater the love, the more false to its object,Not to be born is the best for man;After the kiss comes the impulse to throttle,Break the embraces, dance while you can.*________________*Chief Justice Abrahamson writing for the majority and quoting W.H. Auden.

As opposed to the unparticular night(s) it happened, one should presume.

Justice Bradley is so smart, so able to use language for her means, she should lead us all with as much power as can be bestowed by us mere Americans.

After all, when's the last time you were able to manipulate words, because or your superior understanding of such, in order to weild as much power as Justice Bradley?

Ha. That's what I thought. You haven't used words to weild power because you're incapable, unlike Justice Bradley, and hence this bitterness exibited along with the expected whining of the impotent when confronted with superior intelectual firepower.

Oh please. There isn't anywhere here that doesn't really think the volcanic tempered Prosser didn't put his hands around Bradley's throat. But since he is a Republican like you, you simply do not care.

Roger is correct though, Wisconsin is the biggest joke in the Union. But for opposite reasons I suspect.

I adamantly do not think Prosser did this. I think he put his thumbs and forefingers around each of her nipples and twisted hard counter clockwise. I think this was in response to Bradley giving him a wedgie in the men's room urinal the previous Wednesday.

That's what I think. Tell us, Garage: did the finders of fact find differently? Will your judicial commission somehow find differently? Is said commission a finder of fact? Do you know what a finder of fact is?

"Her statement on it's face causes me to think the entire thing was a stunt and part of the effort to get rid of Prosser. It is her statement itself that is the clearest evidence I've heard about."

The concertedness of the effort is what has me worried. All of these efforts--all prosecuted by members of one political party--it's the timing that's suspicious. It's not that they shouldn't oppose the measures Walker introduced via ordinary political means and channels--it's the timing and the unusual tactics that stand out. It's all very un-Wisconsin.

I've seen nothing formal yet, from anyone involved, claiming he didn't put his hands around her neck. Not even Prosser I don't believe. Today he admitted an "incident" happened, and he was "relieved" no charges were filed.

I think Bradley is a liar who flailed at Prosser and tried to blame him for her batshit craziness. Absolutely looney tunes, and by that I mean a WI Democrat, but I repeat myself.

Prosser has a rap sheet going back to when he was in the Assembly. Bradley has nothing of the sort. You aren't fooling anyone with this weak pathetic shit, and I don't know why you persist.

Obviously an altercation happened, even according to Prosser, and it's just a matter of what happened.

The hot-head with a history of outbursts of anger towards women, reporters, fellow Assembly members, or a justice that has....well.... none?

So apparently Garage and the other disappointed lefties have concluded that Sauk County DA Patricia Barrett is a hack incompetent or a Republican tool? How else could one explain her failure to recommend prosecution?

You really don't care who you trash, do you, Garage, as long is advances the narrative? So much for her long and honorable career.

HazThere will be a signature drive, it will be easily successful. But do they have a candidate with money? Huge question mark for sure. But it's not soley up to the WDP. A Utah anti immigration group intiated the Dem recalls, remember? Before the Dems filed, also too.

And why wouldn't Team Obama want a bunch of pissed off WI Democrats at the polls in the general?

There will be a signature drive, it will be easily successful. But do they have a candidate with money? Huge question mark for sure. But it's not soley up to the WDP. A Utah anti immigration group intiated the Dem recalls, remember? Before the Dems filed, also too.

And why wouldn't Team Obama want a bunch of pissed off WI Democrats at the polls in the general?

The signature drive will be "easily successful"? About 600,000 signatures in 60 days? Good luck with that. Especially since by January most people will have come to the realization that Walker's policies are actually successful, and that the world isnt ending like most Dems said it would. Hell, Tom Barrett already has egg on his face by saying the Walker budget would "break" Milwaukee, when in fact the health care changes alone has netted that city at least $12 million in extra cash.

And as far as Obama goes...a bunch of "pissed off WI Democrats" isnt going to save this state or the country for him, because there are plenty of other pissed off people that cant wait to vote him out.

No it won't be successful. The recall will require a minimum of 740,000 verified signatures. Not going to happen, especially when one third will be bogus names or addresses added by covert conservative teams organized for that purpose.

Trust me, there is a plan. And we will have the "Recall Walker" tee shirts to wear when signing petitions.

Ahem--I rise to the defense of my friend Garage--we do not agree on politics, but other than than that we are friends--Garage is NOT a guy that would assume another identity to make his point--He's an up-front guy. terribly mistaken, of course, but up front.

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

"I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack."

Its never the actual event, but the seriousness of the charge. Even when the charge is trumped-up, which is often the case in the world of the progressive.